Smoking and olfactory dysfunction: A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was undertaken, examining the association between tobacco smoking and olfactory function in humans, utilizing PubMed and Web of Science (1970-2015) as data sources. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS: This database review of studies of smoking and olfaction, with a focus on identifying high-quality studies (based on modified versions of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), used validated olfactory tests among the generally healthy population. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Of 10 cross-sectional studies, two were excluded from meta-analysis because the cohorts they studied were included in another article in the review. In meta-analysis, current smokers had substantially higher odds of olfactory dysfunction compared to never smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37-1.85). In contrast, former smokers were found to have no difference in risk of impaired olfaction compared to never smokers (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.91-1.21). The single longitudinal study reviewed found a trend toward increased risk of olfactory decline over time in ever smokers; this trend was stronger in current as compared to former smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Current smoking, but not former smoking, is associated with significantly increased risk of olfactory dysfunction, suggesting that the effects of smoking on olfaction may be reversible. Future studies that prospectively evaluate the impact of smoking cessation on improvement in olfactory function are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A. Laryngoscope, 127:1753-1761, 2017.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".